This study investigated the predictors of support for and resistance to hacktivism in a sample of 78 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors at a Midwestern university. Results from surveys about real-world instances of hacktivism indicate different preexisting global attitudes predict specific situational hacktivism support (predicted by admiration) versus resistance (predicted by willingness to report). Also, participants gave greater weight to their perceptions of hacktivist (rather than target) trustworthiness/untrustworthiness. Comparisons among different facets of trustworthiness suggest perceptions of shared values with and integrity of the hacktivists are especially important for predicting support and resistance. Participants also were more supportive of hacktivism rated as having higher utilitarian value but not less supportive of hacktivism initiated for retribution. Mediation analyses indicated that situation perceptions significantly mediated the effects of global attitudes on hacktivism support/resistance, but that the significance of specific mediators was inconsistent across analyses. This suggests that the importance of mediators may depend on specific context.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
2.
AjzenI. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
3.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
4.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
5.
BohnerG.DickelN. (2011). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391–417.
6.
BradleyG. W. (1978). Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 56.
7.
BrunstingS.PostmesT. (2002). Social movement participation in the digital age predicting offline and online collective action. Small Group Research, 33, 525–554.
8.
CarlsmithK. M.DarleyJ. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.
9.
CorrP. J. (2013). Approach and avoidance behaviour: Multiple systems and their interactions. Emotion Review, 5, 285–290.
10.
DenningD. E. (2001). Activism, hacktivism, and cyberterrorism: The Internet as a tool for influencing foreign policy. In ArquillaJ.RonfeldtD. (Eds.), Networks and netwars: The future of terror, crime, and militancy (pp. 239–288). Pittsburgh, PA: RAND.
11.
FeshbachS. (1970). Aggression. In MussenP. H. (Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology (pp. 159–259). New York, NY: John Wiley.
12.
FleesonW. (2007). Situation-based contingencies underlying trait-content manifestation in behavior. Journal of Personality, 75, 825–861.
13.
GandhiR.SharmaA.MahoneyW.SousanW.ZhuQ.LaplanteP. (2011). Dimensions of cyber-attacks: Cultural, social, economic, and political. Technology and Society Magazine, IEEE, 30, 28–38.
14.
GauJ. M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 187–205. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9220-8.
15.
GrayJ. A. (1991). Neural systems, emotion and personality. In MaddenJ. (Ed.), Neurobiology of learning, emotion, and affect (Vol. 4, pp. 273–306). New York, NY: Raven.
16.
HammJ. A.PytlikZilligL.HerianM. N.BornsteinB. H.TomkinsA. J.HoffmanL. (2013). Deconstructing public confidence in state courts. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 11–31.
17.
HareliS.WeinerB. (2002). Social emotions and personality inferences: A scaffold for a new direction in the study of achievement motivation. Educational Psychologist, 37, 183–193.
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35, 20–40.
20.
HoltT. J.KilgerM. (2012). Examining willingness to attack critical infrastructure online and offline. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 798–822.
21.
JordanT.TaylorP. A. (2004). Hacktivism: Rebels with a cause. London, England: Routledge.
22.
KanekarS.BulsaraR. M.DuarteN. T.KolsawallaM. B. (1981). Perception of an aggressor and his victim as a function of friendship and retaliation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 241–246.
23.
KellyC.KellyJ. (1994). Who gets involved in collective action?: Social psychological determinants of individual participation in trade unions. Human Relations, 47, 63–88.
24.
KrotK.LewickaD. (2012). The importance of trust in manager-employee relationships. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10, 224–233.
25.
LandrumA. R.MillsC. M.JohnstonA. M. (2013). When do children trust the expert? Benevolence information influences children's trust more than expertise. Developmental Science, 16, 622–638.
26.
LevyS. (2001). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
27.
ManionM.GoodrumA. (2000). Terrorism or civil disobedience: Toward a hacktivist ethic. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 30, 14–19.
28.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–734.
29.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
30.
PytlikZilligL. M.TomkinsA. J.HerianM. N.HammJ. A.Abdel-MonemT. (2012). Public input methods and confidence in government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6, 92–111.
SchussmanA.SouleS. A. (2005). Process and protest: Accounting for individual protest participation. Social Forces, 84, 1083–1108.
33.
SiegristM.CvetkovichG.RothC. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 353–362.
34.
TaylorP. A. (2005). From hackers to hacktivists: speed bumps on the global superhighway?New Media & Society, 7, 625–646.
35.
TettR. P.GutermanH. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.
36.
Van StekelenburgJ.KlandermansB. (2013). The social psychology of protest. Current Sociology, 61, 886–905.
37.
WarrenM. J. (2008). Hackers and cyber terrorists. In QuigleyM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of information ethics and security (pp. 304–311). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
38.
WastiS. A.TanH. H.ErdilS. E. (2011). Antecedents of trust across foci: A comparative study of Turkey and China. Management and Organization Review, 7, 279–302.
39.
WeinerB. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
40.
WeinerB. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45, 28–36.
41.
WorkmanM.PhelpsD. C.HareR. C. (2013). A study of performative hactivist subcultures and threats to businesses. Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective, 22, 187–200.
42.
XuZ.HuQ.ZhangC. (2013). Why computer talents become computer hackers. Communications of the ACM, 56, 64–74.
43.
YarM. (2005). Computer hacking: Just another case of juvenile delinquency?The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 387–399.
